Skip to main content

Full text of "Antony Sutton Collection of Works"

See other formats


Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

Appendix B: 

Testimony of the Author Before 
Subcommittee VII of the Platform 
Committee of the Republican Party 
at Miami Beach, Florida, 
August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

This appendix contains the testimony presented by the author before the Republican Party National 
Security Subcommittee at the 1972 Miami Beach convention. The author's appearance was made 
under the auspices of the American Conservative Union; the chairman of the subcommittee was 
Senator John Tower of Texas. 

Edith Kennit Roosevelt subsequently used this testimony for her syndicated column in such 
newspapers as the Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.). Both major wire services received copies from 
the American Conservative Union; they were not distributed. Congressman John G. Schmitz then 
arranged for duplicate copies to be hand-delivered to both UPI and AP. The wire services would not 
carry the testimony although the author is an internationally known academic researcher with three 
books published at Stanford University, and a forthcoming book from the U.S. Naval Institute. 

The testimony was later reprinted in full in Human Events (under the title of "The Soviet Military- 
Industrial Complex") and Review of the News (under the title of "Suppressed Testimony of Antony 
C. Sutton"). It was also reprinted and extensively distributed throughout the United States by both 
the American party and the Libertarian party during the 1972 election campaign. 

The following is the text of this testimony as it was originally presented in Miami Beach and made 
available to UPI and AP: 

The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex 

The information that I am going to present to you this afternoon is known to the Administration. 

The information is probably not known to the Senator from South Dakota or his advisers. And in 
this instance ignorance may be a blessing in disguise. 

I am not a politician. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. My job is to give you facts. 
Whether you like or dislike what I say doesn't concern me. 

I am here because I believe — and Congressman Ashbrook believes — that the American public 
should have these facts. 

I have spent ten years in research on Soviet technology. What it is — what it can do — and 
particularly where it came from. I have published three books and several articles summarizing the 

It was privately financed. But the results have been available to the Government. On the other hand I 
have had major difficulties with U.S. Government censorship. 

I have 1 5 minutes to tell you about this work. 



Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — 
came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the 
NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive 
construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through 
trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance. 

Listening to Administration spokesmen — or some newspaper pundits — you get the impression 
that trade with the Soviet Union is some new miracle cure for the world's problems. That's not quite 

The idea that trade with the Soviets might bring peace goes back to 1917. The earliest proposal is 
dated December 1917-just a few weeks after the start of the Bolshevik Revolution. It was 
implemented in 1920 while the Bolsheviks were still trying to consolidate their hold on Russia. The 
result was to guarantee that the Bolsheviks held power: they needed foreign supplies to survive. 

The history of our construction of the Soviet Union has been blacked out — much of the key 
information is still classified — along with the other mistakes of the Washington bureaucracy. Why 
has the history been blacked out? 

Because 50 years of dealings with the Soviets has been an economic success for the USSR and a 
political failure for the United States. It has not stopped war, it has not given us peace. 

The United States is spending $80 billion a year on defense against an enemy built by the United 
States and West Europe. 

Even stranger, the U.S. apparently wants to make sure this enemy remains in the business of being 
an enemy. 

Now at this point I've probably lost some of you. What I have said is contrary to everything you've 
heard from the intellectual elite, the Administration, and the business world, and numerous well- 
regarded Senators — just about everyone. 

Let me bring you back to earth. 

First an authentic statement. It's authentic because it was part of a conversation between Stalin and 
W. Averell Harriman. Ambassador Harriman has been prominent in Soviet trade since the 1930’s 
and is an outspoken supporter of yet more trade. This is what Ambassador Harriman reported back 
to the State Department at the end of World War II: 

"Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and 
during the War. Stalin* said that about, two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet 
Union has been built with the United States' help or technical assistance." 

I repeat: "two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with the 
United States' help or technical assistance." 


Two out of three. 

Stalin could have said that the other one-third of large industrial enterprises were built by firms from 
Gennany, France, Britain and Italy. 

Stalin could have said also that the tank plants, the aircraft plants, the explosive and ammunition 
plants originated in the U.S. 



Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

That was June 1944. The massive technical assistance continues right down to the present day. 

Now the ability of the Soviet Union to create any kind of military machine, to ship missiles to Cuba, 
to supply arms to North Vietnam, to supply arms for use against Israel — all this depends on its 
domestic industry. 

In the Soviet Union about three-quarters of the military budget goes on purchases from Soviet 

This expenditure in Soviet industry makes sense. No Army has a machine that chums out tanks. 
Tanks are made from alloy steel, plastics, rubber and so forth. The alloy steel, plastics and rubber are 
made in Soviet factories to military specifications. Just like in the United States. 

Missiles are not produced on missile-making machines. Missiles are fabricated from aluminum 
alloys, stainless steel, electrical wiring, pumps and so forth. The aluminum, steel, copper wire and 
pumps are also made in Soviet factories. 

In other words the Soviet military gets its parts and materials from Soviet industry. There is a Soviet 
military-industrial complex just as there is an American military-industrial complex. 

This kind of reasoning makes sense to the man in the street. The fanner in Kansas knows what I 
mean. The salesman in California knows what I mean. The taxi driver in New York knows what I 
mean. But the policy makers in Washington do not accept this kind of common sense reasoning, and 
never have done. 

So let's take a look at the Soviet industry that provides the parts and the materials for Soviet 
armaments: the guns, tanks, aircraft. 

The Soviets have the largest iron and steel plant in the world. It was built by McKee Corporation. It 
is a copy of the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Indiana. 

All Soviet iron and steel technology comes from the U.S. and its allies. The Soviets use open hearth, 
American electric furnaces, American wide strip mills, Sendzimir mills and so on — all developed 
in the West and shipped in as peaceful trade. 

The Soviets have the largest tube and pipe mill in Europe — one million tons a year. The equipment 
is Fretz-Moon, Salem, Aetna Standard, Mannesman, etc. Those are not Russian names. 

All Soviet tube and pipe making technology comes from the U.S. and its allies. If you know anyone 
in the space business ask them how many miles of tubes and pipes go into a missile. 

The Soviets have the largest merchant marine in the world — about 6,000 ships. I have the 
specifications for each ship. About two-thirds were built outside the Soviet Union. 

About four-fifths of the engines for these ships were also built outside the Soviet Union. 

There are no ship engines of Soviet design. Those built in side the USSR are built with foreign 
technical assistance. The Bryansk plant makes the largest marine diesels. In 1959, the Bryansk plant 
made a technical assistance agreement with Bunneister & Wain of Copenhagen, Denmark, (a NATO 
ally), approved as peaceful trade by the State Dept. The ships that carried Soviet missiles to Cuba 
ten years ago used these same Bunneister and Wain engines. The ships were in the POLTAVA class. 
Some have Danish engines made in Denmark and some have Danish engines made at Bryansk in the 
Soviet Union. 

About 100 Soviet ships are used on the Haiphong run to carry Soviet weapons and supplies for 
Hanoi's annual aggression. I was able to identify 84 of these ships. None of the main engines in 



Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

these ships was designed and manufactured inside the USSR. 

All the larger and faster vessels on the Haiphong run were built outside the USSR. 

All shipbuilding technology in the USSR comes directly or indirectly from the U.S. or its NATO 

Let's take one industry in more detail: motor vehicles. 

All Soviet automobile, truck and engine technology comes from the West: chiefly the United States. 
In my books I have listed each Soviet plant, its equipment and who supplied the equipment. The 
Soviet military has over 300,000 trucks — all from these U.S. built plants. 

Up to 1968 the largest motor vehicle plant in the USSR was at Gorki. Gorki produces many of the 
trucks American pilots see on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Gorki produces the chassis for the GAZ-69 
rocket launcher used against Israel. Gorki produces the Soviet jeep and half a dozen other military 

And Gorki was built by the Ford Motor Company and the Austin Company — as peaceful trade. 

In 1968 while Gorki was building vehicles to be used in Vietnam and Israel further equipment for 
Gorki was ordered and shipped from the U.S. 

Also in 1968 we had the so-called "FIAT deal" — to build a plant at Volgograd three times bigger 
than Gorki. Dean Rusk and Wait Rostow told Congress and the American public this was peaceful 
trade — the FIAT plant could not produce military vehicles. 

Don't let's kid ourselves. Any automobile manufacturing plant can produce military vehicles. I can 
show anyone who is interested the technical specification of a proven military vehicle (with cross- 
country capability) using the same capacity engine as the Russian FIAT plant produces. 

The tenn "FIAT deal" is misleading. FIAT in Italy doesn't make automobile manufacturing 
equipment — FIAT plants in Italy have U.S. equipment. FIAT did send 1,000 men to Russia for 
erection of the plant — but over half, perhaps well over half, of the equipment came from the United 
States. From Gleason, TRW of Cleveland and New Britain Machine Co. 

So in the middle of a war that has killed 46,000 Americans (so far) and countless Vietnamese with 
Soviet weapons and supplies, the Johnson Administration doubled Soviet auto output. 

And supplied false infonnation to Congress and the American public. 

Finally, we get to 1972 under President Nixon. 

The Soviets are receiving now — today, equipment and technology for the largest heavy truck plant 
in the world: known as the Kama plant. It will produce 100,000 heavy ten-ton trucks per year — 
that's more than ALL U.S. manufacturers put together. 

This will also be the largest plant in the world, period. It will occupy 36 square miles. 

Will the Kama truck plant have military potential? 

The Soviets themselves have answered this one. The Kama truck will be 50 per cent more 
productive than the ZIL-130 truck. Well, that's nice, because the ZIL series trucks are standard 
Soviet army trucks used in Vietnam and the Middle East. 

Who built the ZIL plant? It was built by the Arthur J. Brandt Company of Detroit, Michigan. 



Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

Who's building the Kama truck plant? That’s classified "secret" by the Washington policy makers. I 
don’t have to tell you why. 

The Soviet T-54 tank is in Vietnam. It was in operation at Kontum, An Loc, and Hue a few weeks 
ago. It is in use today in Vietnam. It has been used against Israel. 

According to the tank handbooks the T-54 has a Christie type suspension. Christie was an American 

Where did the Soviets get a Christie suspension? Did they steal it? 

No, sir! They bought it. They bought it from the U.S. Wheel Track Layer Corporation. 

However this Administration is apparently slightly more honest than the previous Administration. 

Last December I asked Assistant Secretary Kenneth Davis of the Commerce Department (who is a 
mechanical engineer by training) whether the Kama trucks would have military capability. In fact I 
quoted one of the Government’s own inter-agency reports. Mr. Davis didn’t bother to answer but I 
did get a letter from the Department and it was right to the point. Yes! we know the Kama truck 
plant has military capability, we take this into account when we issue export licenses. 

I passed these letters on to the press and Congress. They were published. 

Unfortunately for my research project, I also had pending with the Department of Defense an 
application for declassification of certain files about our military assistance to the Soviets. This 
application was then abruptly denied by DOD. 

It will supply military technology to the Soviets but gets a little uptight about the public finding out. 

I can understand that. 

Of course, it takes a great deal of self confidence to admit you are sending factories to produce 
weapons and supplies to a country providing weapons and supplies to kill Americans, Israelis and 
Vietnamese. In writing. In an election year, yet. 

More to the point — by what authority does this Administration undertake such policies? 

Many people — as individuals — have protested our suicidal policies. What happens? Well, if you 
are in Congress — you probably get the strong ann put on you. The Congressman who inserted my 
research findings into the Congressional Record suddenly found himself with primary opposition. 
He won't be in Congress next year. 

If you are in the academic world — you soon find it's OK to protest U.S. assistance to the South 
Vietnamese but never, never protest U.S. assistance to the Soviets. Forget about the Russian 
academics being persecuted — we mustn't say unkind things about the Soviets. 

If you press for an explanation what do they tell you? 

First, you get the Fulbright line. This is peaceful trade. The Soviets are powerful. They have their 
own technology. It's a way to build friendship. It's a way to a new world order. 

This is demonstrably false. 

The Soviet tanks in An Loc are not refugees from the Pasadena Rose Bowl Parade. 



Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

The "Soviet" ships that carry arms to Haiphong are not peaceful. They have weapons on board, not 
flower children or Russian tourists. 

Second, if you don't buy that line you are told, "The Soviets are mellowing." This is equally false. 

The killing in Israel and Vietnam with Soviet weapons doesn’t suggest mellowing, it suggests 
premeditated genocide. Today — now — the Soviets are readying more arms to go to Syria. For what 
purpose? To put in a museum? 

No one has ever presented evidence, hard evidence that trade leads to peace. Why not? Because 
there is no such evidence. It's an illusion. 

It is true that peace leads to trade. But that's not the same thing. You first need peace, then you trade. 
That does not mean if you trade you will get peace. 

But that's too logical for the Washington policy makers and it's not what the politicians and their 
backers want anyway. 

Trade with Gennany doubled before World War II. Did it stop World War II? 

Trade with Japan increased before World War II. Did it stop World War II? 

What was in this Gennan and Japanese trade? The same means for war that we are now supplying 
the Soviets. The Japanese Air Force after 1934. depended on U.S. technology. And much of the 
pushing for Soviet trade today comes from the same groups that were pushing for trade with Hitler 
and Tojo' 35 years ago. 

The Russian Communist Party is not mellowing. Concentration camps are still there. The mental 
hospitals take the overload. Persecution of the Baptists continues. Harassment of Jews continues, as 
it did under the Tsars. 

The only mellowing is when a Harriman and a Rockefeller get together with the bosses in the 
Kremlin. That's good for business but it's not much help if you are a G.I. at the other end of a Soviet 
rocket in Vietnam. 

I've learned something about our military assistance to the Soviets. 

It's just not enough to have the facts — these are ignored by the policy makers. 

It's just not enough to make a common sense case — the answers you get defy reason. 

Only one institution has been clearsighted on this question. From the early 1920’s to the present day 
only one institution has spoken out. That is the AFL-CIO. 

From Samuel Gompers in 1920 down to George Meany today, the major unions have consistently 
protested the trade policies that built the Soviet Union. 

Because union members in Russia lost their freedom and union members in the United States have 
died in Korea and Vietnam. 

The unions know — and apparently care. 

No one else cares. Not Washington. Not big business. Not the Republican Party. 

And 100,000 Americans have been killed in Korea and Vietnam-by our own technology. 



Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

The only response from Washington and the Nixon Administration is the effort to hush up the 

These are things not to be talked about. And the professional smokescreen about peaceful trade 

The plain fact — if you want it — is that irresponsible policies have built us an enemy and maintain 
that enemy in the business of totalitarian rule and world conquest. 

And the tragedy is that intelligent people have bought the political double talk about world peace, a 
new world order and mellowing Soviets. 

I suggest that the man in the street, the average taxpayer-voter thinks more or less as I do. You do 
not subsidize an enemy. 

And when this story gets out and about in the United States, it's going to translate into a shift of 
votes. I haven't met one man in the street so far (from New York to California) who goes along with 
a policy of subsidizing the killing of his fellow Americans. People are usually stunned and 

It requires a peculiar kind of intellectual myopia to ship supplies and technology to the Soviets when 
they are instrumental in killing fellow citizens. 

What about the argument that trade will lead to peace? Well, we've had U.S. -Soviet trade for 52 
years. The 1st and 2nd Five Year Plans were built by American companies. To continue a policy that 
is a total failure is to gamble with the lives of several million Americans and countless allies. 

You can't stoke up the Soviet military machine at one end and then complain that the other end came 
back and bit you. Unfortunately, the human price for our immoral policies is not paid by the policy 
maker in Washington. The human price is paid by the farmers, the students and working and middle 
classes of America. 

The citizen who pays the piper is not calling the tune — he doesn't even know the name of the tune. 
Let me summarize my conclusions: 

One: trade with the USSR was started over 50 years ago under President Woodrow Wilson with the 
declared intention of mellowing the Bolsheviks. The policy has been a total and costly failure. It has 
proven to be impractical — this is what I would expect from an immoral policy. 

Two: we have built ourselves an enemy. We keep that self-declared enemy in business. This 
information has been blacked out by successive Administrations. Misleading and untruthful 
statements have been made by the Executive Branch to Congress and the American people. 

Three: our policy of subsidizing self-declared enemies is neither rational nor moral. I have drawn 
attention to the intellectual myopia of the group that influences and draws up foreign policy. I 
suggest these policies have no authority. 

Four: the annual attacks in Vietnam and the war in the Middle East were made possible only by 
Russian armaments and our past assistance to the Soviets. 

Five: this worldwide Soviet activity is consistent with Communist theory. Mikhail Suslov, the party 
theoretician, recently stated that the current detente with the United States is temporary. The purpose 
of the detente, according to Suslov, is to give the Soviets sufficient strength for a renewed assault on 
the West. In other words, when you've finished building the Kama plant and the trucks come rolling 
off — watch out for another Vietnam. 



Appendix B: Testimony of the Author Before Subcommittee VII of the Platform at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M. 

Six: internal Soviet repression continues — against Baptists, against Jews, against national groups 
and against dissident academics. 

Seven: Soviet technical dependence is a powerful instrument for world peace if we want to use it. 

So far it's been used as an aid-to-dependent-Soviets welfare program. With about as much success as 
the domestic welfare program. 

Why should they stop supplying Hanoi? The more they stoke up the war the more they get from the 
United States. 

One final thought. 

Why has the war in Vietnam continued for four long years under this Administration? 

With 15,000 killed under the Nixon Administration? 

We can stop the Soviets and their friends in Hanoi anytime we want to. 

Without using a single gun or anything more dangerous than a piece of paper or a telephone call. 

We have Soviet technical dependence as an instrument of world peace. The most humane weapon 
that can be conceived. 

We have always had that option. We have never used it. 


* He, in original.